dbt

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

dbt AI

Loadable protocols vs descriptions in Claude system prompts — an open-source therapy framework as case study

I built an open-source framework called Inner Dialogue — a structured AI therapy supplement that runs on Claude Code. It's file-based, which is the whole point: the modality protocols, your profile, and your session history all live as local markdown, so Claude Code reads them at session start and writes session notes and profile updates back to disk as you go. That's why it's Claude Code and not the web app — it needs local file read/write to do the session-to-session continuity. Free to try, MIT-licensed, no paid tiers: github.com/ataglianetti/inner-dialogue I'm a product manager, not a career engineer, so I built the whole thing with Claude Code too: Claude wrote most of the implementation while I drove the architecture and the clinical content. The thing I learned building it that I think generalizes beyond therapy: there's a real difference between system prompts that describe a methodology and system prompts that ship the methodology as a loadable sequence the model can run. Most "expert system" prompts are descriptive — they tell the model what a framework is, what its terms mean, what the user might experience. The model can then sound like it's using the framework. But it's not running anything. There's no triggering-pattern-to-next-move logic. The difference shows up most clearly in clinical modalities. DBT works well in AI tools, including Claude, because DBT happens to ship its protocols as mnemonics: TIPP, DEAR MAN, ACCEPTS. The mnemonic IS the sequence. When you load DBT, you're loading operational content. IFS (Internal Family Systems) doesn't work nearly as well in most AI tools, despite being conceptually simpler to describe. The IFS protocol (the 6 F's) requires the system to run a specific diagnostic question — "how do you feel toward this part right now?" — at a specific point in the sequence. Without it, every conversation collapses back into talking about parts instead of to them. Inner Dialogue's IFS modality file is built around that diagnostic as a literal move, with signaling cues spelled out as verbatim client phrases the system listens for ("I am worthless," "I just need to think positive"), example interventions in therapist voice, and cross-modality routing embedded at the point a handoff applies (e.g., compulsive behaviors: IFS leads, CBT follows). Full writeup with the structural argument: Most AI therapy tools describe the modality, they don't run it. Curious how others have approached the loadable-vs-descriptive distinction for other expert domains. The point about pre-packaged mnemonics (DBT) being the easiest to operationalize seems like it should generalize. submitted by /u/echowrecked [link] [comments]

i feel ai helps me solve problems, but my thinking process just disappears

i’ve been using claude code a lot, and something started to bother me. i solve a problem, but later i realize i have no idea *how* i solved it. it feels like the whole process just gets volatilized. so i made a simple claude plugin called nvm (non-volatile memory). it just turns my claude session history into simple markdown cards — focused on what problem I solved, why I made certain decisions, and what I can reuse later. i’ve been using it for weekly/daily review, and it actually helps me remember what I learned (not just what I shipped). also feels useful for sharing context with teammates. curious if others have the same problem — do you ever go back to your AI conversations, or do you just solve things again? or maybe this isn’t even a real problem for most people? https://preview.redd.it/fyuohd7u4jtg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=8bbe228899e81c46c8e6393328c0431fa75c64a8 submitted by /u/Legitimate-Cup-3172 [link] [comments]

I gave Claude a clinical spine. It stopped giving advice and started actually thinking with me.

I’ve been building something I call Satori for about a year now. It’s a Claude skill, open source, and it does something I haven’t seen any other AI project do well: it treats conversation like a discipline, not a performance. Most AI “wellness” or “self-reflection” tools are just a system prompt that says “be empathetic.” The result is what you’d expect. Vague validation, a list of suggestions, and a tone that feels like a customer service bot wearing a therapist costume. Satori is built differently. Under the hood, it has what I call a clinical spine. Every conversation moves through a structured process (attune, clarify, formulate, integrate, translate, anchor), but the person on the other end never sees that scaffolding. They just feel like they’re talking to someone who’s actually paying attention. It draws on real frameworks and uses them as tools, not decoration. Rogers, Jung, Stoicism, IFS, DBT, Motivational Interviewing, Buddhist and Taoist contemplative traditions. The skill selects which framework fits what you’re actually going through, applies one per response, and ties insight to movement. The goal is never just “I feel heard.” The goal is “I see something I didn’t see before, and I know what to do next.” Here’s the thing I’m most proud of, and the thing that sets it apart from anything I’ve found: I built it so that sometimes it stops trying to help. If it detects you’re in deep, non-clinical despair, the 3am kind, it shifts into what I call the Dark Night Protocol. It drops the movement imperative entirely and just stays present. No reframing, no silver linings, no “have you tried journaling?” It just sits with you. I know that sounds like a small thing. It’s not. Every AI tool I’ve tested defaults to fixing. The ability to just witness, without flinching, is the hardest thing to engineer and the most human thing it does. Try it yourself before you install anything: Here’s a shared conversation that shows what Satori actually sounds like when someone brings something real to it. That’s the best way to decide if this is worth your time. If you want to install it: download the zip from the GitHub repo, go to Customize → Skills in Claude, and upload it. Takes about 3 minutes. It’s Apache 2.0 licensed. Free. The whole architecture is transparent. You can read every reference file to see exactly how it’s weighted and why. I’d genuinely love feedback from this community. Stress-test it. Tell me where it breaks. Tell me where it does something you didn’t expect. That’s how it gets better. submitted by /u/crazynfo [link] [comments]